Congress and the President are talking about tax rebates to help stimulate the economy. Okay...
A rebate is money you've paid that is returned to you. A tax cut is money you never have to pay in the first place.
So why is it that the same people opposed to tax cuts - and letting you keep more of your money in the first place - are now suddenly falling all over themselves to give you some of that money back?
If a rebate - letting people have more money in their pockets - can have the intended impact of stimulating the economy (which is certainly not proven - and you can listen to Eye On Toledo tonight for details), wouldn't tax cuts - permanent ones at that - have the same, but longer term, impact?
Basically, you cannot claim that a rebate will stimulate the economy and then also claim that permanent tax cuts don't. If you vote for a rebate, you also have an obligation to vote to make the current tax cuts permanent...unless you want to play the politics of envy when it comes to money.
Further, the rebate being discussed is $800 per single filer or $1,600 for married filers. Why must the rebate be equal across all incomes? If someone who makes more money has to pay more taxes, shouldn't those people get more of a rebate? And if we're going to talk about treating everyone equally in terms of the amount of the rebate, shouldn't that same consideration and approach be applied to how much people have to pay in taxes in the first place?
Contradictions abound. And our elected officials get away with it - because we let them.